Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
yeah, cthulu23... i'm going to have to pile-on because that just doesn't hold up. if we're hearing about strategic missiles and nuclear developments now you have to know that those programs have been in the works for years and years. the idea that they started these programs in response to a U.S. policy in the established in the last 3-4 years is very unrealistic. it seems like some people can't wait to blame Bush for all the world's ills, plausibility be damned.
|
Pile on what, exactly, Irate? Did anybody here say that Bush actions STARTED these programs, or that they are merely a response to his actions?
No, no, no, and no. I've re-read my response, and that of Cthulu, and I think we were both VERY clear that these programs may not have started under Bush, but that the Bush strategy has made combatting them more difficult. My first post doesn't even refer to Bush, but cites US history in general.
This isn't a flame, and I don't want you to take this wrong, but please give us some credit here, we aren't idiots and we are aware that the world wasn't some lovey-dovey,-let's-hold-hands-and-sing-songs kind of place before Bush. Your (not just you Irate, but others) attempts to paint our arguments as something they aren't is completely disingenuous and I don't appreciate it in the least.
I have been heavily involved in studying foreign affairs and military science since I have been able to vote. I'm under no illusions about the existance of numerous nuclear programs during the 1990s. Heck, Pak and India tested before Bush took office, didn't they? Noone here is eager to blame Bush for these things. But the fact is they were there when he took office, and I do hold him to blame for not being more effective at tackling them. Since he has taken office, we have seen NK restart her program, shelved near the end of Clinton's term, and seen China announce an unprecedented enhancement of her nuclear force. Both of these events can be directly linked to actions of the Bush Administration. North Korea because Bush allowed the carefully negotiated situation by Clinton to fall apart because he didn't want to maintain shipments to NK, and China as a direct reaction to the Bush decision to go live with a NMD system. We can arue over whether either or both of these was a good choice, but the fact is they did make non-proliferation more difficult.
Now, if you want to have a discussion about how we can achieve non-proliferation, then please let's do, but please let's not be dog-piling on things people said, especially when they DIDN'T SAY THEM!